Assess the contribution of psychological theories, to the understanding of criminal behaviour, with reference to one or more of the following; Freud, Bowlby, Eysenck, Trasler.
Open college. B-Unit, CRIMINOLOGY. Essay1
Assess the contribution of psychological theories, to the understanding of criminal behaviour, with reference to one or more of the following; Freud, Bowlby, Eysenck, Trasler.
By
Helen Martin.
The aim of criminal psychology is to explain in psychological terms the reasons why people commit crimes. There are many different schools of thought within psychology, ranging from biological theories to personality theories, each with its own explanation.
An area that has contributed a great deal to the explanation of criminal behaviour is that of personality theory.
Sigmund Freud was the founder of psychoanalytic theory, which was the foundation of personality theory. Although he didn't specifically discuss the area of criminality, his theories can be and have been applied to the area. In order to show how this has happened; an explanation of Freud's theories needs to be given.
Freud believed that personality is split into three separate parts, the id, the ego and the super-ego. The id is the basic instinct part of personality, containing all biological urges and is present at birth. It works purely on desire and cannot control itself. The ego develops after birth and acts to temper the desires of the id, giving thought to the consequences of actions. The super-ego is the moral centre of personality. It functions in the unconscious and is responsible for controlling both the id and the ego. Freud argued that conflicts between these different parts of personality are the cause of future problems, neuroses and psychoses. He also said that these conflicts might never be resolved.
Freud did not directly discuss criminality, however his work was applied to this area by August Aichorn, following his work with delinquent children. Aichorn said that criminal behaviour was a result of what he called 'latent delinquency'. He argued that latent delinquency occurred when a child had a under-developed ego and super-ego. This meant that they were functioning on urges only with no thought to morals or consequences, due to their low level of moral development. The delinquents he worked with were in children's home, and Aichorn found that this environment simply made their problems worse rather than better.
The idea of an id, or 'pleasure principle' dominated personality was developed further by Healy and Alexander, who saw a criminal as being unable to progress to the 'reality principle', where a developed ego and super-ego is essential.
In 1936 Healy and Bronner studied 105 families with two sons, where one brother was criminal and the other was not, in order to discover why, if criminality is based in biology, this happened. They found that the criminal brother had failed to develop strong ties with the mother as an infant, and they concluded that he had turned to crime to gain pleasure, which was needed to satisfy his id. They called this 'sublimation'. Sublimation is the process where instinctual impulses are channelled into thought behaviours and emotions, without thought for morals or consequence. This means that the criminality is simply the acting out of impulses.
John Bowlby carried out research to discover whether Healy and Bronner's findings that there is a link between early relationships and criminality, had a basis. He was specifically interested in the early relationships between parent and child and later criminality. In 1946 Bowlby studied 44 juvenile delinquents and also 44 non-delinquents. He found that in the delinquent group, 39% had experienced complete separation from their mothers for 6 months or more during the first 5 years of their life. In comparison, only 5% of the non-delinquent group had experienced a similar level of separation. Bowlby concluded that early ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
John Bowlby carried out research to discover whether Healy and Bronner's findings that there is a link between early relationships and criminality, had a basis. He was specifically interested in the early relationships between parent and child and later criminality. In 1946 Bowlby studied 44 juvenile delinquents and also 44 non-delinquents. He found that in the delinquent group, 39% had experienced complete separation from their mothers for 6 months or more during the first 5 years of their life. In comparison, only 5% of the non-delinquent group had experienced a similar level of separation. Bowlby concluded that early maternal deprivation is related to anti-social behaviour. This conclusion rests on two key points. Firstly a warm, close and loving relationship with the mother, or permanent mother substitute is necessary for good mental health. Secondly separation from, and rejection by the mother figure accounts for the majority of the more permanent cases of delinquency.
The theory put forward by Bowlby has led to the growth of the school of common-sense, that being that being that broken homes lead to delinquent children. His theory has led to a large amount of research investigating the effects of maternal deprivation. The growing amount of evidence has led to the theory being used as a basis for treatment for the effects of deprivation, that is attempting to provide loving and caring relationships for those who need them the most.
Following Bowlbys work there have been a number of studies concerned with the roles of broken homes. Although the findings showed that broken homes might play a part in delinquency, longitudinal studies have found that it was not maternal deprivation alone that has led to delinquency.
Two other people who have had a great impact on psychological explanations of criminality are Gordon Trasler and Hans Eysenck.
Hans Eysenck's theory draws upon not only personality theory, but also the biological approach, psychoanalysis, and also on learning and control theories. The basis of Eysenck's theory lies in the subtle differences between the central nervous system (CNS) and the autonomic nervous system (ANS) of individuals. These physical differences can account for, according to Eysenck, whether a person can or will conform to social rules, and this concept plays a significant part in determining whether a person will commit criminal behaviour. This means that people with less sensitive and excitable nervous systems are more likely to and even probably will engage in crime.
Eysenck believed that there are major dimensions within our personalities. These dimensions run on two intersecting scales. The E scale, which runs from extrovert to introvert, and the N scale, which runs from emotionally stable to emotionally unstable (see appendix1 for diagram). Most people fall around the middle of the scales, however some people do fall around the extremes. He believed that those who fell at the extrovert end of the scale, need more excitement to satisfy their urges, and are therefore more likely to turn to crime. Eysenck went on to say that criminal behaviour didn't occur simply because of personality types. Instead he believed that most people learn from past experiences that crime doesn't pay, but because of the physical makeup of their CNS and ANS (which is the determinant of personality type), some people, namely extroverts, do not condition easily and therefore do not learn from past experiences. This means that they do not have a fear of punishment. This is how Eysenck explained his idea that extroverts were more likely to be criminals.
In 1977 Eysenck added another dimension to his theory. He called this psychoticism. He predicted that criminals would be extrovert, emotionally unstable and also score highly on the psychoticism scale. There is however inconsistent support for the theory of extrovert criminals, although there is support for a link between a high score on the psychoticism scale and repeat offending.
Bartol evaluated Eysenck's work in 1999 and he argued that despite their problems, the theories put forward by Eysenck represent a broad theory of criminality, which is testable and they still stimulate research today.
Eysenck influenced Gordon Trasler, and he developed his theory of criminality through a more balanced view of the relationships between the environment, personality and physiological make up. Trasler accepted as did Eysenck, that different people have a different ability for conditioning, which is influenced genetically and also based on a person's position on Eysenck's personality scale. However more emphasis was placed on the differing quality of conditioning received by a child, and more weight was also given to the removal of approval rather than physical punishment. Trasler, in contrast to Eysenck believed that children could be conditioned just as well through the anticipation of loss of approval, as through anticipation of pain. Trasler concluded that it was better for parents to use well-placed principles rather than deal with each event individually. He regarded this verbal reinforcement as a central part of successful socialisation. Trasler developed his theories further to explain class differences within criminality rates. He believed that the middle classes were able to provide a better quality of conditioning and this is why more people from working class backgrounds become criminals. This means that Trasler believed that the prevalence of crime in the working classes was a result of a lax and permissive child rearing process provided by the working class parents. Trasler disputed the theory of extrovert criminals by saying that, as it was a characteristic, which is genetically determined it ought to be spread evenly across the population, and therefore the extroversion argument cannot alone explain the differences between the class differences in the criminality rates. However Trasler did argue that extroversion could play a part in the criminality of the middle classes, seen as they had received more effective social training they must be harder to condition.
Recently there has been an increasing amount of research into the neurological and biological causes of crime. It has been found that some hyperactive children and adolescents have a vitamin B3 deficiency, and there has been an argument, made by Weiss (1983), linking hyperactivity in childhood to delinquency later in life. There have also been attempts to explain criminal behaviour through EEG (electroencephalogram) readings, but there have been no long-term correlation found in this area.
A theory that seems to link the biological perspective to the personality theories, is Sheldons' constitutional theory. He believed that our personalities are, in part, determined by our physical makeup. He found three main somatypes (body shapes), and discovered that with each type came a different set of personality traits. The three types are endomorphs, who are soft, friendly and loving, ectomorphs who are thin, weak and sociable and finally mesamorphs who are strong, muscular and assertive.
Glueck & Glueck (1950) found that among a group of 500 delinquents, 60% were mesamorphs, whereas in the control group of 500, only 31% were mesamorphs. They concluded that their somatype probably equipped them well for delinquency, rather than being the sole cause of it. The also said that delinquency, and criminality, was probably caused by a combination of physiological, psychological, social and emotional factors.
A major criticism of personality theory is that the research, if any, is not carried out in a scientific manner, and is therefore unreliable and unpredictable. On the whole, this type of theory appears to be reliant on the interpretative skills of the theorist. Countering this, the psychoanalysts say that it is not their aim to provide a scientific explanation of behaviour and criminality, but to simply provide a theory which could explain the reasons behind why people carry out certain behaviours, in this case committing criminal acts. Theorists such as John Bowlby did use more empirical methods, however they did not manage to provide concrete evidence of a scientific link between the theory and criminality.
It must also be remembered that the majority of these theories were formulated 20 years or more ago. Since then society and attitudes have changed and developed a great deal. It would therefore be fair to say that some of these theories may have become outdated, but they have become the building blocks for a number of theories that are being, or have been developed more recently. They therefore have succeeded in providing a basis for the understanding of the reasons behind criminal behaviour.
It is possible that they could also play an important role in preventing future crime, by predicting the criminality of individuals. Identifying problems could do this, and attempting to rectify them before crime is committed. It could also be possible, through the administration of certain tests, to assess a person's liability to re-offend. This could obviously be useful in the area of parole, early release from prison and probation. Another application could be in the treatment of criminals. It could be possible for offenders who have personality disorders to receive treatments and therapy to help to 'cure' their criminality.
APPENDIX 1
Fig. 1 Eysenck's Dimensions of Personality
UNSTABLE
MOODY TOUCHY
ANXIOUS RESTLESS
RIGID AGGRESSIVE
SOBER EXCITABLE
PESSIMISTIC (1) CHANGEABLE
RESERVED (3) (4) IMPULSIVE
UNSOCIABLE OPTIMISTIC
QUIET ACTIVE
INTROVERT (2) EXTROVERT
PASSIVE SOCIABLE
CAREFUL OUTGOING
THOUGHTFUL (5) (6) TALKATIVE
PEACEFUL RESPONSIVE
CONTROLLED EASY-GOING
RELIABLE LIVELY
EVEN-TEMPERED CAREFREE
CALM LEADERSHIP
STABLE
KEY
(1) N Scale (4) Choleric
(2) E Scale (5) Phlegmatic
(3) Melancholic (6) Sanguine
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brewer, K. (2000) Psychology and crime, Heinemann
Heidensohn, F. (1989) Crime and society, Macmillan
Hollin, C. (1989) Psychology and crime, Routledge
Jones, S. (2001) 2nd edition, Criminology, Butterworths
Moore, S. (1998) 2nd edition, Investigating crime and deviance, Collins
0
2
